2014 QCCQ 8681, 2014 QCCQ 8681

Protection de la jeunesse — 141058 2014 QCCQ 8681 COUR DU QUÉBEC CANADA PROVINCE DE QUÉBEC DISTRICT [...] LOCALITÉ [...] « Chambre de la jeunesse »

N° : 525-41-026314-120 DATE : Le 21 février 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ SOUS LA PRÉSIDENCE DE L’HONORABLE LUCIE GODIN ______________________________________________________________________ Dans la situation de: X Né le: […] 2011 Directrice de la protection de la jeunesse La requérante -et- A - et - B Les parents mis en cause ______________________________________________________________________ JUGEMENT ______________________________________________________________________ MISE EN GARDE : La Loi sur la protection de la jeunesse interdit la publication ou la diffusion de toute information permettant d’identifier un enfant ou ses parents.

Quiconque contrevient à cette disposition est passible d’une amende (art. 11.2, 11.2.1 et 135 L.P.J.). [ 1 ] Le Tribunal est saisi d'une requête en révision de l'ordonnance rendue le 16 avril 2013 dans laquelle il déclarait que la sécurité et le développement de l'enfant demeuraient compromis, et en conséquence, le confiait à ses parents à la condition qu'ils résident avec les membres de leur famille élargie, notamment les grands-parents maternels ou paternels. [ 2 ] De plus, les parents devaient s'assurer que l'enfant ne soit pas laissé avec les parents à aucun moment à moins d'une supervision par une tierce personne sauf autorisation de la Directrice de la protection de la jeunesse. [ 3 ] Des modalités de contacts étaient prévues, de même que certaines autres mesures visant à corriger la situation, le tout pour une période d'une année. [ 4 ] La requérante (DPJ) allègue que la situation de l'enfant comporte des faits nouveaux qui justifient de réviser l'ordonnance rendue. [ 5 ] La DPJ allègue que l'évolution de la situation permettrait de confier l'enfant à ses parents sans condition liée à la supervision des membres de la famille élargie. [ 6 ] La mère admet les faits allégués dans la requête et exprime son accord avec les recommandations de la DPJ. [ 7 ] Il en est de même pour le père qui admet tous les faits allégués à la requête et exprime aussi son accord avec les recommandations de la DPJ. [ 8 ] Me Flexer, au nom de l'enfant, n'a pas d'admission spécifique à formuler, mais malgré tout mentionne être en accord avec les recommandations de la DPJ.

État de compromission [ 9 ] Tenant compte des admissions formulées par la mère et par le père, de même que la preuve documentaire, le Tribunal conclut que les faits nouveaux révélés par la preuve justifient de réviser l'ordonnance rendue le 16 avril 2013. [ 10 ] Le Tribunal retient les éléments suivants: ➢ «the child has remained in the care of his parents while living with his paternal grandparents; ➢ the child appears to be thriving in this environment; ➢ the child started daycare at the end of the summer;

➢ the parents would like to move with the child into their own apartment; ➢ there have not been any further altercation between the parents; ➢ the father engaged in counselling sessions at the CLSC A; ➢ the mother has continued to receive individual counselling by Ms. [Social worker 3] from the CLSC. ➢ the Director of Youth Protection's involvement remains necessary to ensure that the parents are able to maintain a stable and consistent, conflict-free environment for the child;»

Mesures [ 11 ] [Intervenante 2], intervenante sociale évalue ainsi la situation: «X has remained in the care of his parents while living with his paternal grandparents. X appears to be thriving in this environment. He started daycare at the end of the summer. Although this change was an adjustment for X, he is going well behaviourally and socially. He is still adjusting to the change in meals served at daycare. He eats more at home. X had a pediatric check up on September 28 th , 2013. Dr. Ali reported no concerns and that he is above average for height and weight.

This worker has observed X to be cheerful and active during visits; singing songs and playing happily, in turn, with his grandfather and parents. Ms A is preoccupied with her dissatisfaction with the current living arrangement. During a meeting on August 26, 201, Ms A was tearful when expressing her difficulties in living in the home of her mother-in-law. She is not comfortable and feels pressured to behave in a way that is counterintuitive, in her couple relationship and in raising her son. She would like to move into an apartment, in Ville A with her husband and X as soon as possible.

She also notes the commute to her part-time law studies at A University, which began in early September, to be an obstacle. She feels that she has spent enough time in this arrangement and would like to have more unsupervised space and time to work on her relationship with her husband. Mr. B is supportive of his wife and agrees that he would like to move into an apartment with Ms A and X. Ms A has also noted that she feels supported by her father-in-law and her husband and appreciates the help her in-laws give in taking care of X while she studies. Ms A continues to meet with Ms C who is a support to her.

She has also spoken about a network of friends with whom she meets to socialize on weekends and during her days off. The paternal grandfather and the parents report no conflict between the couple. He feels that the cultural adjustment was a major factor for the couple. In his opinion, the conflict has been resolved and he is not concerned for X, if they should move out on their own. Ms A and Mr. B agree that they understand each other better now and realize their differences and support each other. Mr.

B has attended an intake meeting at CLSC B but is exploring whether he can continue receiving counselling services from the CLSC A. Mr. B appears motivated to resume counselling; identifying some areas he would like to explore. During the meetings with this worker, the couple has presented as united and supportive of each other. They have been unguarded and smiling often although Ms A often appears anxious while clearly articulating her discomfort with their living situation.

They have mentioned that they used to go for walks together as a family but, given their busy schedules now, they have found it difficult incorporate this activity.» [1] [ 12 ] Tenant compte de l'évolution de la situation, la rédactrice du rapport précise la nature de l'intervention de la DPJ dans les termes suivants: «Since the parents plan to move into an apartment and to live as a nuclear family as soon as possible, a DYP follow up would be necessary to ensure that the parents are able to maintains a stable and consistent, conflict free environment for their son.

In addition, a continued commitment to community support would need to be monitored to ensure the mother's emotional and mental health is stable.» [2] [ 13 ] Avant de formuler ses recommandations, l'intervenante identifie les buts et objectifs de l'intervention qu'elle énonce ainsi: «Mr B and Mrs A must ensure that X is not exposed to violence, in any form; Ms.

A must fully address her own emotional and psychological needs.» [3] [ 14 ] Tenant compte de l'évolution de la situation, de la preuve documentaire et du consentement exprimé par la mère et le père, non seulement dans le fait que l'enfant leur soit confié, mais dans leur engagement de collaborer dans le cadre du suivi social et de s'impliquer dans toute mesure visant à corriger la situation. [ 15 ] Le Tribunal conclut que les recommandations de la DPJ sont dans l'intérêt de l'enfant. [ 16 ] FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 17 ] GRANTS the motion; [ 18 ] REVISES the decision that was rendered on April 16, 2013; [ 19 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the child continues to be in danger;

[ 20 ] ENTRUSTS the child to the care of his parents; [ 21 ] ORDERS that the parents participate in individual counselling and follow all of the recommendations made by their respective treating professional; [ 22 ] ORDERS that father completes a psychological assessment and follow through with all of the recommendations made; [ 23 ] AUTHORIZES Director of Youth Protection to obtain and share information with all the services providers working with the family concerning motivation and attendancy; [ 24 ] RECOMMENDS that the parents refrain from all form of physical or verbal violence including the user of threats of physical harm to the child or in the presence of the child; [ 25 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and his family for a period of nine (9) months as of today; [ 26 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child, X , to the Director of Youth Protection of Batshaw Youth and Family Centres. __________________________________ LUCIE GODIN, J.C.Q.

Me Isabelle Loranger Procureure de la DPJ Me Alec Flexer Procureur de l'enfant Date d’audience : 21 février 2014